Glasia 森の魔王🌳
The Destroyer
I use bus / train / tram / metro engine sounds as ASMR.ASMR is stressful and often disgusting
King Jameth III🌳
CelebrationMK10
Cool, I use *insert sounds from Terraria and Doom, and also Lego stuff* as ASMR.I use bus / train / tram / metro engine sounds as ASMR.
*Builds something in Lego Star Wars: TCS*
mmmmmmmm
Benry Gaming ❤️
Steampunker
Funerals should be fun and have activities to play and no setting there bored. I don't want people to be bored at the celebration of my life, that's really offensive to me!
Burnscars
Fire Bad
I don't know if this is exactly an unpopular opinion, but I believe that raytracing, although impressive technology, will cause developers moving forward to become very lazy with regard to lightmapping for raster graphics and that raytracing is a massive waste of hardware resources. Even if you are looking at the coming 50 series from nVidia or already have a 4080ti or 4090, it makes no sense to use a feature that does nothing to improve the gameplay itself, or that can utilize light in ways we can't use raster graphics for. Take the light puzzles in Resident Evil 7 for example, there are light puzzles done with raster graphics that look very realistic, with no raytracing required. It really is absurd in my opinion and seems like a feature that will give developers another excuse to be sloppy with game design, expecting the hardware to chew on the poorly engineered code in their AAAA slop for the next few years.
It will eventually advance enough to have subsurface scatter and realistic light passing through flesh and other hyper-realistic features that I am looking forward to, but I suspect this will only come after another great gaming crash that will coincide with a declining world economy sliding ever closer to catastrophic war. I look forward to the far future, but the near future with raytracing seems decadent and completely unnecessary. If we apply AI to building lightmaps, we might be able to push raster graphics farther than ever, and think that developers should leave raytracing to feature length CGI movies or extreme graphics demos for testing instead of expecting to put these features in blockbuster games when the market isn't ready for that technology yet.
It will eventually advance enough to have subsurface scatter and realistic light passing through flesh and other hyper-realistic features that I am looking forward to, but I suspect this will only come after another great gaming crash that will coincide with a declining world economy sliding ever closer to catastrophic war. I look forward to the far future, but the near future with raytracing seems decadent and completely unnecessary. If we apply AI to building lightmaps, we might be able to push raster graphics farther than ever, and think that developers should leave raytracing to feature length CGI movies or extreme graphics demos for testing instead of expecting to put these features in blockbuster games when the market isn't ready for that technology yet.
Im_ConfuzzledCobalt🥐🌳🐿
Plantera
<original thread title: What is considered "overrated" that you think is underrated?>
Quite simple.
I'll start: Megalovania. It's a good song and deserves all the love it got plus move!
Quite simple.
I'll start: Megalovania. It's a good song and deserves all the love it got plus move!
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi @ethan2🥐🌳🐿 this post kinda fit in an already existing thread topic, so I moved it.<original thread title: What is considered "overrated" that you think is underrated?>
Quite simple.
I'll start: Megalovania. It's a good song and deserves all the love it got plus move!
Im_ConfuzzledCobalt🥐🌳🐿
Plantera
Oh, okay.
Green_Metaknight
The Destroyer
Benry Gaming ❤️
Steampunker
Why not? Is this a meme I don't get or smothing
Green_Metaknight
The Destroyer
It's not a meme. I believe that the small amount of "evidence" that Atheist scientists have for macroevolution isn't enough to warrant teaching it in public schools. I also believe that teaching macroevolution in schools is a violation of the 1st amendment; teachers aren't allowed to inform students of any alternate perspectives.Why not? Is this a meme I don't get or smothing
Glasia 森の魔王🌳
The Destroyer
PE is the most BS school subject on Earth. Mostly due to the teaching style.
Im_ConfuzzledCobalt🥐🌳🐿
Plantera
and because the girls who I know probably won't ever do anything in life are trying to spread false rumors about me and my friend and then claim they weren't talking about us. There's 1761 kids in this school, and if my calculations are right... there's less than a 1/1,000,000 chance of the rumors not being of us.PE is the most BS school subject on Earth. Mostly due to the teaching style.
Benry Gaming ❤️
Steampunker
There is a very large amount of evidence supporting it. Please research it, if you want.I believe that the small amount of "evidence" that Atheist scientists have for macroevolution
The first amendment does not say that. There is nothing in the first amendment, or even the whole Constitution that would make teaching this illegal. Actually, banning teaching macroevolution in school likely would violate the first amendment.teaching macroevolution in schools is a violation of the 1st amendment; teachers aren't allowed to inform students of any alternate perspectives.
Im_ConfuzzledCobalt🥐🌳🐿
Plantera
They should teach both a religion class and a science class in schools, which would give kids, and by extention, people, more information and help them choose what they want to believe better, and how to believe, better.
Meowlegend
CelebrationMK10
There is not a "best video game", instead there is only your favorite game.
Im_ConfuzzledCobalt🥐🌳🐿
Plantera
This man above me. This man right here. He is righter than right itself.
King Jameth III🌳
CelebrationMK10
THis man above me speaks truth
Green_Metaknight
The Destroyer
I've done plenty of research.There is a very large amount of evidence supporting it. Please research it, if you want.
I don't want to get in a big argument here though, so I recommend that you look up Creationist arguments against macroevolution in addition to looking up Evolutionist arguments against Creationism.
I probably should have worded that better; I don't mean that teaching macroevolution should be illegal, I'm saying that people should be taught about both Atheist and Creationist perspectives, rather than what schools are doing currently; only telling the Atheist perspective, and saying that it's unquestionably true with no real evidence against it.The first amendment does not say that. There is nothing in the first amendment, or even the whole Constitution that would make teaching this illegal. Actually, banning teaching macroevolution in school likely would violate the first amendment.
I agree to some extent, but I don't think they should be so separated; religion classes should mention scientific disagreements that vary depending on religion, and science classes should talk about non-Atheist perspectives.They should teach both a religion class and a science class in schools, which would give kids, and by extention, people, more information and help them choose what they want to believe better, and how to believe, better.
Science and religion are not opposed to each other; that's just what Atheist-influenced school curriculums want you to think.
King Jameth III🌳
CelebrationMK10
Isn't that the truth.Science and religion are not opposed to each other; that's just what Atheist-influenced school curriculums want you to think.
Science and religion go hand-in-hand. Most scientific advancements have some root in theological or religious purposes.
Benry Gaming ❤️
Steampunker
I'm sorry, but there is basically no objective evidence I can find against it. If you have some, please link it to me or something.I've done plenty of research.
I don't want to get in a big argument here though, so I recommend that you look up Creationist arguments against macroevolution in addition to looking up Evolutionist arguments against Creationism.
First of all, macroevolution is not an "atheist perspective", a large number of scientists, including the ones who helped develop and support the theory, are not atheists. Second of all, schools are supposed to only teach objective things, they can't teach things that are personal and subjective to many different people, that's not the point of school. Macroevolution is based on objective evidence, which is why it's appropriate to teach in a school.people should be taught about both Atheist and Creationist perspectives, rather than what schools are doing currently; only telling the Atheist perspective, and saying that it's unquestionably true with no real evidence against it.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 6
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 41
- Views
- 4K
-
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.